Re: [lisp] Fwd: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT)

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

Right now there is no circular dependency. To summarize:

(1) RFC6830 does not point to 6830bis or lisp-intro.
(2) lisp-intro points to RFC6830.
(3) 6860bis needs to point to RFC6830.

Let’s please don’t change any this. Let’s not make this more complciated then it needs to be and let’s not confuse people, especially the authors. ;-)

Dino


> On Sep 11, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On September 11, 2018 at 9:50:29 AM, Joel M. Halpern ([e-mail]) wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
>> Any change to lisp-intro should be done by discussion with the RFC 
>> Editor, as it is in the RFC Editor queue (pending reference completion).
>> If the working group considers it acceptable, we could easily ask them 
>> to change the references to 6830 and 6833 to the bis documents (after 
>> all, it is alreay blocked by documents which depend upon those.)
> The reference would still be circular: rfc6830bis would point at lisp-introduction for architecture details, and that would point back here.
> 
> If lisp-introduction was just that (an introduction) and the details were in rfc6830 to start with…. Maybe the easy fix is to just not point to lisp-introduction from rfc6830bis, because the details should be here (and rfc6833bis) already.
> 
> s/Finally, [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] describes the LISP architecture.//
> 
> Alvaro.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>> 
>> On 9/10/18 11:27 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> > If you guys have source for the intro doc, I could point it to bis 
>> > documents?
>> > 
>> > Dino
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Begin forwarded message:
>> > 
>> >> *Resent-From:* <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> >> *From:* Alvaro Retana <[e-mail] 
>> >> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> >> *Date:* September 10, 2018 at 2:22:21 PM PDT
>> >> *Resent-To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>, 
>> >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail] 
>> >> <mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail] 
>> >> <mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail] 
>> >> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> >> *To:* "The IESG" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> >> *Cc:* [e-mail] 
>> >> <mailto:[e-mail]>, Luigi Iannone 
>> >> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] 
>> >> <mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> >> *Subject:* *Alvaro Retana's No Objection on 
>> >> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT)*
>> >>
>> >> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
>> >> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: No Objection
>> >>
>> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> >> introductory paragraph, however.)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> COMMENT:
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the work on this document!
>> >>
>> >> I have some relatively minor comments/nits:
>> >>
>> >> (1) §18: s/RFC8060/RFC8061
>> >>
>> >> (2) §1: "Finally, [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] describes the LISP
>> >> architecture."  First of all, it would seem to me that the 
>> >> Architecture should
>> >> be a Normative reference...but I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction says that it 
>> >> "is used
>> >> for introductory purposes, more details can be found in RFC6830, the 
>> >> protocol
>> >> specification."  This document obsoletes rfc6830...so it seems to me 
>> >> that there
>> >> is a failed circular dependency.
>> >>
>> >> (3) References to rfc2119/rfc8174 and rfc8126 should be Normative.
>> >>
>> >>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> lisp mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp